Quote from: Tomla on May 12, 2016, 12:20:33 AM
are you saying bet 1 unit 10x then 2 units 20x?

Nope. You have to start the progression whenever you get some losses and the first column (# of losses) dictates how mush to bet.
You keep staying at the same level if you win up to the point where you get the zero equilibrium point, in that case you get a profit.
If you lose, you keep track of the losses (again column #1) and act accordingly.

Of course a perfect progression/regression should start at a higher standard bet working counterwise, let's say $200. Whenever you win you go down the same you would do with the L progression.

When we win the house owns something from us as well as we expect something from it after some losses. 

as.

 
   

We know that any progression will get the best of it whenever a zero equilibrium point will be reached within a fair amount of trials. Of course some progressions could do even better, that is getting the player a profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.
Notice that the well known D'Alambert progression will win 1 unit after the equilibrium is reached but not everytime as everything depends about the DISTRIBUTION of W and L.

Here I'm talking about the almost absolute impossibility to lose our entire bankroll and this is a total different thing than stating that we will win easily. Nonetheless knowing that we won't lose in the longest possible runs isn't a vulgar accomplishment.

I have to forcely consider a $100 standard unit bet and the total bankroll is $6600 (66 units).
For simplicity we won't take into account the commission when applied.
Remember that our goal is to reach at a given point a zero equilibrium point, meaning we want to get the W/L ratio = zero.
Later more on that.

Columns are: L deviations, betting amount in $, financial exposure, gain after the equilibrium will be reached

0  $100           100   -
1  $100 + $10 210 10
2  $100 + $20 330 30
3  $100 + $30 460 60
4  $100 + $40 600 100
5  $100 + $50 750 150
6  $100 + $60 910 210
7  $100 + $70 1080 280
8  $100 + $80 1260 360
9  $100 + $90 1450 450
10 $100 + $100 1650 550
11 $200 + $10 1860 660
12 $200 + $20 2080 780
13 $200 + $30 2300 780
14 $200 + $30 2430 910
15 $200 + $30 2760 910
16 $200 + $30 2990 910
17 $200 + $40 3130 1050
18 $200 + $40 3370 1050
19 $200 + $40 3610 1050
20 $200 + $40 3850 1050
21 $200 + $50 4100 1200
22 $200 + $50 4350 1200
23 $200 + $50 4600 1200
24 $200 + $50 4850 1200
25 $200 + $50 5100 1200
26 $200 + $60 5360 1360
27 $200 + $60 5620 1360
28 $200 + $60 5880 1360
29 $200 + $60 6140 1360
30 $200 + $60 6400 1360
31 $200 + $60 6600 1360

We see that to lose our entire bankroll we need either a 5.56 sr negative deviation (like looking at 31 negative hands in a row, a 31 streak) or, most likely, a W/L gap of 31.

Every roulette player knows that a gap between even chances could easily reach and surpass the W/L amount (btw a 31 streak is a very very very rare finding also at this game) but at baccarat we have a lot of ploys to find two opposite events that cannot reach the 31 negative (or less likely positive)value by any fkn means.
Especially if we want to prolong the progression by another 10 or so steps. 

So we know that adopting this slow progression we can't lose or, better sayed, that the probability to lose is really very very low, let's say almost impossible.

And, wonder of wonders, with proper adjustments we may use it betting only the Player side, hence knowing that we won't pay a bit of commission.

In a word, we can even regularly bet the unfavourable side knowing that we can't lose itlr.

A further example why we have to play slowly and with a lot of patience.

as.   



   



     

   

   

The PONR (point of no return) effect was one of the decisive tools that helped me to discover some favourable betting opportunities.

What's a PONR?

Every experienced baccarat player knows that after every session where the losses were too high, the subsequent efforts to recover partially or totally the deficit were almost always ineffective. Moreover, any effort to try to break even not only was worthless but even added more losses. More often than not.

Trying to erase a one unit deficit is quite simple, trying to erase a two unit deficit is an unproportional (not linear) more difficult task. And so on.

So I name as PONR a given point where the odds to recover the deficit are so bad that we better quit the betting.
Notice that the exact opposite situation, that is getting many consecutive winnings with very low possibilities to lose the entire gain are less likely placed for obvious reasons.

So itlr, the probability to get many winnings in a row is lower than to get the opposite situation.
With important consequences on a possible RTM effect.

The concept of "session" could be confusing as any player intend to consider a session as:

- a single shoe

- a given amonut of shoes

- a day

- a week

- a month

Most people consider a session as a given amount of played shoes or a day.

We see that the parameter is the time factor, even considered in form of shoes played or in form of hours or days or weeks.

All due to both mathematical and humanly related considerations, the PONR will most likely show up on short terms as the humanly related factor will have the predominant part over the mathematical factor.

Computing the sum of the average bac player outcomes, there's almost no one player in the world losing 1.06% or 1.24% of the total bets wagered itlr. They lose far more than that, not only for some of them wanted to wager the very negative odds of side bets.

Since most part of players like to bet many spots, we can safely assume that the PONR will more likely act on such players than on more selected bettors.

Of course, diluting the betting for itself isn't a valid reason to expect less losing patterns, yet we have to assume that the PONR will be more likely encountered by frequent bettors as the PONR factor will be proportionally placed with the bets wagered. Because almost every single bet we place is EV-.

The PONR factor represents just the bottom of the canyon we want to avoid falling into, there are many intermediate steps along the way.
Actually each time we're trying to climb up toward the ridge we'll meet an opposite stronger force bringing us more and more toward the invariable descent.

The fact that along this invariable descent we are hoping to find some handholds shouldn't give us much confidence. Such handholds are rare and most part of the times they are too weak.

Good news is that per every PONR it exists a slight lesser amount of opposite PONR, meaning that in some circumstances our whole expectation is more oriented toward a climbing mood than a descending one. But we better restrict our terms of intervention as the rule is to get a descending mood and not a climbing one.

Our task should be focused about those rare occurences where the opposite favourable PONR presence will be so high that the counter force cannot overwhelm it.
The same way a negative PONR will act, now on the opposite side.

PONR and opposite PONR.

It's all about making the wrong move at the right time, just to quote the C.K. movie.

as.

   



     







   



   




   










 

Thanks mahatma.

as. 

I don't have the recipe for the secret sauce, neither gr8player does.

There's no a secret sauce as baccarat is a mathematically unbeatable game.

My strategy as I already told you is not different to yours only I prefer to bet very few hands or at least I seriously bet very few hands. Call it a very selected trend following strategy, call it whatever you want.
You'll win 30,50 or even 60 units in a single short session, I can't do that as I don't want to lose counterpart sessions getting me 30,50 or 60 units deficit.

My methods are so diluted that the betting frequency will be hugely spread into several shoes. Fluctuations of my betting spots appearance are so great that giving you an average betting ratio per shoe is just ridicolous. An average number could be 3-4 main bets per every 10 shoes.

It'll be my duty to promptly communicate to you my "new" WR as I added to my plan some more frequent patterns, otherwise Lung will kill me right on the table spot.

So we're playing the same game with the same strategy, only I select more my spots.
No secrets, just the assessment of very long WL testings and infinite hours dedicated to this f. game.

Take care and say a genuine hello to your beautiful wife.

as. 






   

 

     

Quote from: Lung Yeh on December 02, 2015, 01:09:59 AM
Now I have my own board?? (Courtesy of Jimske?? Thanks).

Well, after every loss, I shut my mind and move on. Make money from my businesses, sell assets and come back again. Playing baccarat makes me happy. I often console myself when I lose that it might as well be some of my business partners or management screwing up and losing me money too. Same thing except that in baccarat I lose the money myself.

I told myself the last trip will be the LAST trip if I lose. But I often lie. To myself. So I am going to try again. And I am working out with aymbac on the Asian trip. Just to let the forum know that the offer did not die off. But we (Asymbac and me) will have to agree on further disclosure in this forum. Truth is some of us here have no tolerance for different opinions and approaches and are quite vocal, dismissive and condescending to those who have different approaches.

God bless.

Thanks for the confidence.

If we'll ever meet us you won't be disappointed. :-)


as.




   


 

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 09:16:49 PM
The trick to taking advantage of these few opportunities is in positioning yourself first by not getting way behind in the session before reaching these opportunities in the first place. I know how to stay at even real easy. That skill must be learned first. 50/50 bets are great for this purpose. Attacking a sleeping dozen that sleeps from 15 to 30 spins in a row is easier still.

I hope you like these simple aspects of the game even more.

Well, I have to admit that another very serious roulette player I've known keep saying the same things you are writing. So I begin to trust you.

Coincidentally, more or less, it's the same way of thought I apply at baccarat with 1 billion accuracy.

The differences with baccarat is that here we get a lower mathematical negative edge, finite card distributions and an asymmetrical factor.

So if you've found some positive expectation hints at roulette I think that at baccarat your edge should be higher.

as.

I'm really sorry for Lung loss. Losing control at this game is very easy, it happened to everyone of us.
 
For everyone thinking that every bet will be 50/50 placed with negative expectation with no points of valid intervention no matter what, I just say "LOL".

as.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 07:33:01 PM
I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins.

Even though I strongly think that roulette is an unbeatable game, for some reasons I like this statement.


as.   

 

Quote from: Rouletta on November 25, 2015, 01:47:42 AM
@ AsymBacGuy - Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to explain how do u come up with the 1.56% please.

It seems to me that by playing 9 lines, or 27 numbers for 3 spins with a light progression, the probability for
losing is extremely low. Do u agree....?

Cheers

Rouletta

Hi rouletta!

Considering an european wheel and zero excluded, betting 27 numbers out of 36 means to have a 25% probability of losing each time. So 0,25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 1.5625%.

To get an easier example, let's say you want to hope not to get three red in row.

So 0.50% x 0.50% x 0.50% = 12.5% of losing, that is 1 time every 8.

In fact there are 8 possible dispositions of 3 spins in a row: BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB and RRR. Just one disposition is a losing one.

Since your probability is right the half of the above situation everytime, you'll divide 12.5% 3 times getting 6.25, 3.125 and the final 1.5625 probability.

Unfortunately no matter how many numbers you'll wager, the probability of losing will be proportionally placed.

The highest probability to win when betting roulette numbers on an european wheel is placing 36 numbers out of 37, but it needs 144 units to win just one unit.
The trick to get a profit even betting 36 numbers relies on the fact that some bets are cumulatively placed on 50/50 chances, so getting a 50% return when the zero comes out.

Cheers

as.   
     

Ignoring zero, it should be around 1.56%.
And of course there's no difference to change or not moving bets.   

as.

In a word and if you want to consistently win at baccarat, you must know that the game is asymmetrical by any means.

No one hand will be formed by perfectly symmetrical features for two reasons:

- first, a decent portion of the total hands will be mathematically B shifted;

- secondly, every next hand will be more or less influenced by the cards previously removed.

Just to give a vulgar example, we know that 8s and 9s hugely removed from the deck are going to get more B oriented hands as P chance won't get a fair percentage of natural points not giving the B side an advantage.
Better sayed, any hand not giving the possibility to P chance drawing isn't going to produce an asymmetrical hand giving the B side an advantage.

It's true that shoes' portions rich of 7s and 6s aren't going to form many asymmetrical hands since P side will show more likely 6 or 7 points, but at least we know that B side has the opportunity either to win by drawing or by showing a natural, besides the cut and dried 7-6 scenario.

Anyway, we cannot care a bit about the card counting procedures, as the general dispositions/distributions topic will make the job fo us ITLR.

Therefore the game is asymmetrical for one reason or another.

Statistically the best tool we can take advantage of is studying what happens itlr on each side.

We don't want to guess what happens most in a shoe WHOLLY considered. We want to register each side separately.

Better sayed, we want to know what most likely happens on each side.

Is this a randomly world?

Yes and no.

Most part of it it will.

Nonetheless, itlr some patterns are more likely than others by 100% accuracy.

Back to a perfect strategy plan, meaning the help of a pc software capable to weight the card removal impact, we know that 3/4 of the hands must be B oriented and just nearly more than 1/5 of the total hands (ties included) are P side favored.

Such result come out from a perfect card by card removal effect (with proper burning cards value) dictating that only some hands are BP favored onto a side or another.

Anyway, we don't want to be favorite on every bet we are wagering. We do want to bet some hands where one side is hugely favored over the the counterpart, no matter the cards distribution.

This is a really nonsense.
How could be in the position to be right more often than not if we're not taking account of cards removed from the deck?

For once, the law of averages will help us.

Average card distributions might help one side no matter the third card rule, yet itlr either the asymmetrical factor or the general card distribution must take place at a higher level capable to invert the negative edge values.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it takes some time to this feature to show up but it will.

as.   

 


 






 


 






   

     

I strongly believe (comforted with my results) that the most winning bets part of a given system must come out from B advantaged situations.
I mean that our B winning wagers must encounter a better 8.6/91.4 ratio as there are no other sensible means to win at this game.

We should remember that among the gambling world, baccarat is the only single bet game where we are advantaged to win. The fact that the house will pay us 0.95 to 1 shouldn't affect our mind.
That doesn't mean that we are supposed to make a steady series of Banker bets strategy, we just have to work about selecting the situations where Banker must show its advantage at a higher degree than expected.
We can accomplish this by several ways: studying long term data, confronting them with actual results, evaluating the actual S/AS ratio, taking care of the S outcomes, knowing the limits of the baccarat system, taking advantage of RTM effect, even roughly assessing the cards removed from the deck.

About the last topic, for example a high amount of 7s removed from the deck (aside than lowering the Dragon bet occurence on EZ tables) will reduce the probability to get asymmetrical hands, as any standing 7 point on one side will totally erase the AS possibility.
Not forgetting that the most valuable AS hands are Banker point 4 or 5. Nonetheless, B4 or B5 are totally worthless from an AS point of view if they'll encounter a 6,7,8 or 9 P point.
In a certain sense, whenever Banker has a 4 or a 5 on the initial two cards and the hand will be not asymmetrical we're losing money.
The same if we're winning by a Banker natural. We'll be happy but we shouldn't. 

Another common situation is when a given shoe is particularly rich of naturals on either side.
I recently played a shoe where more than half of the hands were naturals. The thing happened along the entire shoe, it seemed that any 8 or 9 was glued to a zero value card.
From a personal statistical point of view the shoe seemed to be a "normal" shoe, getting 18 columns on each side. 
I finally counted the AS hands and after what I've sayed so far you can guess how many of them have shown up.

as.   








   
       




   











     

So let's pretend we are going to bet Player for whatever reason.

Anytime our Player hand will get a 6,7,8 or 9 point we are on haven territory. No matter the real outcome will be.  This is very important.
Another good scenario besides the above happenings will be whenever Player will get a 5 point and Banker a 4 point, as we have 5/13 cards value (zero and aces) ending up the hand in P favor without further B drawing. Only an 8 would be a disaster, a 9 forming a tie and all other cards forming a symmetrical situation into an asymmetrical spot with a slight P advantage. 

Thus and from a strict hand point of view, about half of the times our P hand won't draw, so the game won't concede any Banker advantage. that means playing the game with a zero negative edge.

Naturally any 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 Player point will be the first condition to get an asymmetrical B favored hand; anyway this first condition fulfilled, Banker must have a 3,4,5 or 6 point to get an AS hand.

So everytime we bet Player and the actual hand won't be an asymmetrical hand we'll play a perfect 50/50 game with the house, a very good accomplishment.

Conversely, when we are betting the P side and we must draw having the Banker 3,4,5 or 6, we are cumulatively in a very bad shape, having to overcome a 15.86% average negative edge.

Nonetheless, some asymmetrical hands will produce some P side winning hands, and some of them are even favorite to win (as depicted on the above 5-4 scenario, or other rich Player favored card shoes).

You see that is the word "average" to confuse us.

We know that the better theorical option itlr will be to bet everytime Banker, producing a lower disadvantage (0.18%), yet we know that many card distributions won't allow decent propositions even on S/AS ratio and on AS outcomes.
That means that many times we'll get too many or too few AS hands or to get unexpected results from AS hands.

Very long term data suggest that rich and very rich Player shoes have shown a fair S/AS ratio, meaning that some AS hands must have gone in the Player favor no matter the disadvantage.
Of course, some very rich Player shoes had provided a larger amount of naturals than expected.

From a general point of view, the most likely outcome to get any natural (on each sides) is an 8 or 9 accompanied by a zero value card; at the same time, any 8 and more importantly a 9 removed from the deck will reduce in some way the power of every asymmetrical hand.
Moreover, any winning Banker hand formed by a natural must be considered as a loss, since it won't produce any AS hand.
Let's think about this: for every 20 Banker hands won by a natural point (or any other non symmetrical hand), we'll surely play a 5% taxed game meaning we'are playing 20 to get 19, an i.diot challenge to deal with.

To try getting the best of it we should forget the word "average", otherwise bac players worldwide have been accounting just a loss of 1% or so of the total bets wagered, and that's not the case. (Yes, such very higher losses should be due by bad money managements and side bets placements, but I know many controlled players not betting side bets having lost a well higher 1% amount).

The AS factor shifthing the bac results itlr cannot present itself forever and ever, so the shoe won't have memory on previous unexpected AS results (favoring P side), but it has a sort of memory about how many AS hands will take place per every shoe. Not only by a total number amount, but also about consecutive clusters and many other features.

So if we're betting the B side after some losses and we're looking at a 7 two card point, we are just playing a coin flip 5% taxed situation, no matter how good looks such 7.

Conversely, any no bet hand on P side forming an AS hand is a huge gain for us and must considered not a single loss but a large loss avoided.

Imo every system must take in account this: lowering the 1.24% Player disadvantage on our P bets and raising the AS expectancy on our Banker bets.

The rest is just a confusing world, even if we are guessing right most of the time.
It won't last for sure.

as.








 




 

 











   


   

 

     













 





   


 



   

Hi RW!

The Banker 15.86% average edge going on asymmetrical spots is a foolproof mathematical finding.

Banker can decide what to do (standing or drawing) after having known the Player third card.
From a strict point occurence, there are 19 such situations, in 17 of them Banker will stand, in the remaining two Banker will draw.

In fact, 15.86 x 8.4 = 1.36%.

1.36% is a familiar finding, right?

Actually 1.36% is the resolved bet Player disadvantage, so it seems I worked fancifully but getting some sound results.

Within each asymmetrical spot Banker will stand 17 over 19 times, so it's easy to assume the third card dealt to the Player won't likely help P side, either because it has a zero/small value or because it's too high to most likely ruin the actual two card Player point.

Of course the rule Banker will stand a huge percentage of times is due to avoid the probability to ruin its initial two card point during a most likely unnecessary situation.

Along the way naturally we'll encounter shoes not getting the proper average S/AS hands ratio, otherwise it would be so easy to wait a large portion of a shoe forming a huge S/AS hands deviation shifted to the left, then hugely betting Banker knowing that we can overcome the 1.06% negative edge by a lower S/AS ratio.

So we should work on many other related features, such as the likelihood of having S hands in relationship of some card distributions, the careful study of the actual running S/AS ratio, the real results of the AS hands.

By this perspective, we should think the game just as a constant effort to pick up the AS hands the more than we can, trying to raise the AS/S ratio (now inversed for practical reasons) and to consider a loss every symmetrical hand that will take place (even and even more if it will be a winning bet).

If we'll be able to transform a S/AS 91.4/8.6 ratio into a sensible lower one on our actual bets (we don't need high values, just to erase the negative edge) we can safely say we can beat the game mathematically.
Of course we cannot expect to get lower ratios betting every hand. It's a slow and difficult process.

as.